Tag Archives: interference

What started as a local town hall debate over a liquor license renewal ended as a state-wide lesson in grammar from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

New Jersey’s highest court ruled last month that the phrase “person acting under color of law” found in N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) is not modified or limited by the phrase’s surrounding grammar. Therefore, the phrase applies to both deprivation and interference claims brought by private party plaintiffs. Perez v. Zagami, LLC, Supreme Court of New Jersey (DDS No. 46-1-3947) (Decided May 21, 2014).

Zagami, LLC applied to the Borough of Glassboro for a liquor license renewal. Luis Perez, a Borough resident, opposed the renewal and testified at the renewal hearing. Zagami later used Perez’s testimonial statements as the basis for a defamation suit against Perez. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ultimately dismissed the defamation case, ruling that Perez’s statements were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding and were entitled to absolute immunity.

Perez then sued Zagami for malicious use of process. The Trial Court granted Zagami’s motion to dismiss and denied Perez’s attempts to amend his complaint to include a Civil Rights Act (CRA) claim. The Trial Court concluded that the CRA only authorizes private suits against persons acting under “color of law.”

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey disagreed with the lower Trial Court and found that Zagami’s defamation suit was largely transparent. The Appellate Division allowed Perez to amend his complaint and include a CRA cause of action against Zagami for a “deprivation” of his civil rights. Citing N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c), which authorizes a private right of action for deprivations of or interference with protected civil rights by a person acting under color of law, the Appellate Division concluded that the “color of law” language applied only to the clause governing “interference” claims.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey disagreed with both lower courts by holding in Perez that the lack of a comma preceding the phrase “by a person acting under color of law” does not modify the phrase. Instead, the phrase applies to both deprivation and interference claims brought by private party plaintiffs. The Court explained that such an interpretation of the phrase was in alignment with both legislative intent and the federal cause of action governed by § 1983.

Commercial Litigation[MUSIC PLAYING] Our firm routinely handles litigation lawsuits in the state courts, the federal courts, and even administrative courts-- meaning courts that are part of administrative agencies. We don't just handle such lawsuits in the states in which we have an office. We are able to go to other states and handle lawsuits there, with permission of the court. The name for that is pro hoc vice. The judge gives us permission to appear before the judge, before the court, that one time. The fact is that our firm has developed a focus in complex commercial litigation that we feel translates well between the different levels of courts and the different jurisdictions. A great deal of the issues when you're dealing with, for example, contract breach, fraud, misrepresentation, intellectual property infringement, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and statutory causes of action such as violation of consumer fraud laws and such, a lot of that has broad application across the board. A fraud in one state and a fraud in another state, while there will be nuances of difference, generally speaking we're talking about very similar legal principles. The way that we approach litigation is that we try to do everything possible to prepare the case for trial. We're not in it to settle the case. We're not in it to give up on the client's case. We believe in the client's case or we wouldn't have taken it. And so we're ready to go. And while we don't-- I wouldn't say we're over the top. I wouldn't say that we're hostile. I wouldn't say they we're angry in the way that we approach litigation. What I would say is that we're assertive. What we try to do is we try to wear our litigation hat and, as appropriate, our transactional hat. Our hat where we're able to put together deals, transactions, when a case is settling. We try to bring both skills to bear so that we're able to do them simultaneously. And we find that that is the best way to represent clients in commercial litigation. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Arbitration

Arbitration

Trust and Estate Litigation

Trust and Estate Litigation[MUSIC PLAYING] Trust and estate litigation is a unique area of practice. It's not a typical lawsuit. The issues involved are generally motivated by not just the question of whether someone is going to inherit money or whether a trust is going to be construed to provide certain benefits or not. The main issue is the emotional content of all these disputes. The concern generally is that unresolved dynamics that were involved in the family for many, many years get played out in the absolute worst circumstances-- when somebody's deceased-- in the absolute worst forum, which is a court of law. And so an attorney needs to be very sensitive to those issues, as well as interested in resolving them in such a way that maintains the family and prevents it from being fractured. The unique aspect of this type of litigation is that it's always in the context of an unfortunate family tragedy, which adds a different dynamic to the representation and the experience that the client is going through. We always endeavored to keep that background in mind and to be sensitive to those issues. And make sure that we're doing the best we can to still advocate for our client and make sure they're getting what they need in their representation, while being sensitive to what they and the other participants in litigation are often going through. There are all sorts of unique issues that arise in trust and estate law. For example, the idea of probable intent, which means that you can have a will that is written in such a way that it's not clear what the person wanted. Or it is clear in a global sense, but the actual legal language that was necessary is not there. The signatures that should've been there as witnesses are not there. There's an internal inconsistency which might be something as simple as a typo. So there's a body of law relating to what's called probable intent. There's also issues relating to elective shares. Elective shares mean that a person cannot disinherit a spouse beyond a certain fraction of their state that is governed by state law. So these elective shares are all different in the different states. They're all governed by different states' legal regimes. But the bottom line is that someone may write a will, think that they're are disinheriting their spouse or reducing the amount of money that their spouse is going to be entitled to. And in fact, that's not what happens, because the statute trumps the will itself. There are also issues relating to trusts. One of the things that lawyers now have seen an explosion of is special needs trust. There are many children who are being born with special needs. The parents need to set up trusts so that if those parents are not around to provide for those kids, and those kids unfortunately might not be able to provide for themselves, that there's some kind of trust in place to help them to make sure that they're taking care of. So it's more than just deciding who would raise your children if you weren't here. Now it's a question of who would also funded that at the same time. All of those things are very, very important and very much integral to the representation of people who are dealing with bereavement, because of an estate issue or people who have needs that are being serviced by a trust.